The ABM Vote: Anybody But McCain by John Batchelor

HumanEvents.com ^ | 23 January 2008 | John Batchelor

[K-oneTexas]

The ABM Vote: Anybody But McCain

by John Batchelor

Posted: 01/23/2008

With sturdy Fred Thompson gone from the GOP race, and Gov. Huckabee fading, Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani remain in contention to capture the ”ABM” vote:  Anybody But McCain. Each of the two have strengths that will make the choice of just one of them a challenge in the weeks lefts before Super Tuesday and the lesser dates in February that will dominate the choice of the nominee.  At the same time, each of them has the same weakness, that is, history.  To nominate either of them would be unprecedented for the Republican Party not because of their politics, or character, but because of their proud and clear self-descriptions -- Mitt Romney as a capitalist, and Rudy Giuliani as a New York mayor.

Mitt Romney is a very smart man, and his remark on the very day of greatest market turmoil is a measure of his experience in the world of free enterprise:

"I can tell you from my own personal experience that every time I've seen things really get scary and the markets really collapse that I put aside that fear for a moment and say, 'Ah-ha, is this a buying opportunity?' Because my experience has always been what goes down, comes back up."

Everything is right about this observation, from the advice to buy when there's blood in the street to the long-term regard for sound investments in growth.  At the same time, Mr. Romney also identifies himself as completely a capitalist bull.  This is a traditional weakness when you are running for POTUS.  There has never been a successful nominee of either party who identified himself primarily as a capitalist.  A century ago, such a title would have pushed the candidate into the Carnegie-Morgan-Rockefeller division of the GOP and would have been ruinous at the general election.  Carnegie cost Harrison in 1892; and Morgan and Wall Street likely cost Taft in 1912.  Even the Bull Moose himself, T.R., fled capitalism when he ran as a breakaway in 1912. 

Half a century ago, Governor Romney's remark would have associated himself with the men in the gray flannel suits, the corporation man, and this became a negative on the campaign trail after the travails of former Ford boss McNamara with the Kennedy Administration, and even was a drag on Governor Romney's former American Motors boss father in the 1964 GOP. Bluntly, there is no precedent for the electorate to choose a “capitalist tool” over a military man like McCain. If and when it happens, Mitt Romney will be the new mold all by himself (Willkie is an outlier and unclassifiable even as a Republican), and will introduce a new phase to the GOP that has avoided the Wall Street mantle for its choices for one hundred years.

With Mayor Giuliani there is the historical weakness that the GOP has never chosen a New York City official for a nominee.  That too would be unprecedented.  After Garfield's horrible end, a lingering death from assassination, the former Collector of the Port of New York Chester Arthur served out the term; however he did not run for election, and this does not qualify as precedent.  TR himself might satisfy except for the fact that he added governor of New York and vice-president to his profile before he ascended by the accident of assassination and won re-election accordingly.

What's wrong with a mayor of the largest city becoming a Republican nominee?  Chiefly, it's because New York City is a Democratic stronghold.  It voted against Lincoln twice and has voted against as many Republicans as it can find since.  Rudy Giuliani is an Achilles in the Troy of the Democrats.  He is an exception to everything about the Republican Party's history.   What makes him colorful and effective in New York also makes him over the top and even shocking to the GOP states, and might make him unacceptable to the ABM crowd that identifies immigration and abortion as touchstones. 
If and when Mr. Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee, it will be so surprising that the party may have to rename itself something up to date, such as the Grand Old Borough.

When Bob Novak writes that the Republican elite is struggling to accept that John McCain is the party's likely nominee, after these may years of friction and food fighting between the Arizona senator and the conservative base, it has more to do with accepting the weight of party history than with discovering how to live with the unimaginable. 

Republican.  History is a mighty river.  It flows where it wants to and it wears down any obstacle.  What old school John McCain has on his side right now is that his major opponents are new, much too new, and they're swimming against the current.

---

Mr. Batchelor is a veteran novelist, author of seven political romances and a short history of the Republican Party, and host of The John Batchelor Show, now on hiatus.

[nmh]

“Mitt was a liberal right up until the election. Why do you think he’s going to be any better? There is such little difference between the two parties that it isn’t worth having a Republican party.”

No, he isn’t. When I did my unbiased research on him, I was suprised that he isn’t what you claim. I am disappointed that we don’t have a more conservative candidate for the GOP. Mitt is a capitalist, the others are ALL socialists. Mike is a humanist using socialism to fuel his utopia. McPain is an open borders guy that is also a social liberal. Of the bunch we have to chose from Mitt would be the better choice.

[marinamuffy]

We are more comfortable being lied to by a slick Northern con man than a slick southern con man? Really, makes no sense to believe Romney’s conversion is real and to reject Huckabee’s as false.

Yep. And this is why I'm having such a hard time deciding between the two slicksters. I do tend to lean toward Huckabee but that seems dangerous around these parts! Oh well, the choice will probably be made long before the Pa primary comes around.....

[Greg F]

Heh, I think Thompson was a stalking horse for McCain. Thompson beat up on Romney in New Hampshire for McCain’s victory and beat up on Huckabee in South Carolina for McCain and then dropped out. See George Wills column today, he says the same thing basically without the punch of drawing the conclusion directly.

[marinamuffy]

I think Thompson was a stalking horse for McCain.

I'm beginning to think the same thing. It's a shame because I like Thompson and he was my next choice after Hunter.

[Eva]

The problem with McCain is that he has no core beliefs, and he really isn’t presidential material. But most important, McCain has no sense of loyalty or duty. Everything that he does is all about him. He has proven this over and over.

[Fishrrman]

"I can tell you from my own personal experience that every time I've seen things really get scary and the markets really collapse that I put aside that fear for a moment and say, 'Ah-ha, is this a buying opportunity?' Because my experience has always been what goes down, comes back up." (remarks by Romney)

If I may be so bold to say so, this sounds kind of "Herbert Hooverish" to me, a la 1930.

- John

[Fishrrman]

“McCain may win the primary, but he’ll never win the general election. Why? Because his conservative base will never support him, either philosophically or financially. And without that support (and he’s in need of strong financial support as I write) he’s DOA”

Look closely at the poll numbers posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1958487/posts

..and then look at my critique of them posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1958487/posts?page=60#60

- John

[Fishrrman]

Has anyone considered a “Draft Rick Santorum” idea as of yet?

Haha, why don't you try that in Pennsylvania first?

And while you're at it, get George "macaca" Allen as his running mate!

- John

[reagan_fanatic]

I think Romney could beat Hillary. Her negatives will come into sharper play as the campaign progresses, and that can only benefit the pubbie nominee.

Hope Mitt will be well prepared for the tidal wave of slander, innuendo, outright lies and the rest of the filthy garbage that will come from the Clinton camp, though.

[DM1]

“All these media people look at past trends and ‘barometers’ to project future events. They seldom look at the will of the American people.”

you got that right
they were all saying Reagan would never win, he was too old, too far right, too much of a hawk etc etc etc

[nmh]

I think Romney could beat Hillary. Her negatives will come into sharper play as the campaign progresses, and that can only benefit the pubbie nominee.

Hope Mitt will be well prepared for the tidal wave of slander, innuendo, outright lies and the rest of the filthy garbage that will come from the Clinton camp, though.

---

Oh, I think Mitt will be. He’s no dope. He’ll do it nicely with a friendly smile on his face - just watch ... .

I an thoroughly ENJOYING the Clintons eating their own. I just love it! It minimizes the Dems getting the WH when they eat their own. Sides will be taken and the nastier it gets the more UN united they will be. I’d love to see the losers sit home because they hate who ever won - Hillary or Osama. Remember LIBERALS are very EMOTIONAL. One side is going to be a sore loser - they may be so pissed that their candidate didn’t win that they sit home and make is easier for the GOP to take the WH.

Either way, I LOVE seeing those rotten DEMONcrats ripping each other apart! Hehehehehehe - grab the pop corn and be entertained.

[slack-jawed yokel]

John McCain voted against the Brady bill and the “assault weapons” ban. Mitt Romney supported the Brady Bill and has promised to sign an assault weapons ban.

[Greg F]

Haha, why don’t you try that in Pennsylvania first?
___________________________________________________

Lincoln ran for President after losing his Senate race. Not saying Santorum is a great choice (I don’t know) . . . just saying that great national leaders may not be the choice of thier home state for office always.

[Emperor Palpatine]

Perhaps because Huckleberry Hound is a tax-raising nanny-state socialist?

I’ll save the intolerant theocrat arguments who wishes to replace the Constitution with Mosaic Law for later.

[Greg F]

Perhaps because Huckleberry Hound is a tax-raising nanny-state socialist?
_____________________________________________________

All questions of fact and circumstances. He was fiscally sound in his first term and was graded more liberal later. The economic elite types in the party are doing the grading though . . . I’m not sure I trust them after all these liberals that keep getting the nomination while we are told they are conservative. If Romney is your man, he talked and governed left, so pick your poison: RINO 1 McCain (trustworthy on National Defense); RINO 2 Huckabee (trustworthy on social issues); RINO 3 Romney (trustworthy on . . . what? anything?)